This video is interesting and definitely worthy of a hearing. I think most of what the filmmakers have to say makes good sense. I don’t have issues with the film’s constitutional arguments. I would happily abolish the Federal Reserve, for example. I also am tired of Congress’ cowardice. Congress has abrogated too many of its responsibilities, including its power to declare war, to the President.

Where do I think the filmmakers err? I think they give conspirators, Cultural Marxists, way too much credit. We ourselves have corrupted our society, not a group of conspirators. When we are our own worst enemy, we do not need to create an enemy or demonize anyone.

What is wrong with the notion that cultural Marxists corrupted our society? Cultural Marxists never had the resources to do what the makers of the video suggest.

What the makers of the film observed and misconstrued is what statisticians would call a false correlation. Yes, we had a group of fanatics voicing the nonsense of godless Marxism. Yes, the decline of our culture coincided with the popularization of godless Socialism. However, godlessness and big government has a multitude of advocates, not just Cultural Marxists.

Fortunately, the filmmakers put the responsibility upon us to peacefully fix the problem. That is because our problem is a bunch of corrupted Americans, not a bunch of insidious conspirators. We have to fix the problem because we have no one to blame except ourselves.

Note one of the key observations in the film. The churches did not fight back. What is it the churches should have fought?
1. State-run education. Parents, not government, must be responsible for the education of children. Government has no valid role. Churches and private groups within local communities have a role, but not government. Because our government can force us to do things we would not otherwise do, state-run run education has too much potential to propagandize instead of educate. It took awhile, but our politicians are using our schools to propagandize our children.
2. State-run charity programs. We give charity out of love for each other. Charity is a religious act. When we allowed our government to establish charity or welfare programs, we allowed our government to establish a state religion, Secular Humanism.
3. Corruption of the mass media. Advertisers exist to sell products, often for amoral corporations. To sell their goods and services many corporations will happily appeal to our base nature. To do that, entertainers and advertisers don’t need to be indoctrinated by Cultural Marxists. Some devil is always at our ear, and when we give in to that devil’s tempting, we will angrily pretend it is not there. Hence, the mass media covers up for their customers, scheming politicians and corporate CEOs.

Who is the Christian Church? Christians. If our government is corrupt — if our country is becoming more and more corrupt — it is because we have stood by and done nothing to stop that growing corruption.

If we want a government that is truly a servant of the People, what do we have to do? We each must make a practice of serving each other.

What is necessary for a republic? Following the example of Christ, the People must set the example for their leaders. If we expect our leaders to set a good example for us, then we have no reason for a republic.

This video answers the question – Why we are in decline in so many areas. it discusses the entire causal effects of Marxism and what has happened to America… Lengthy, but well worthy of viewing in it’s entirety. This is a very important election year.

This video is for all who want to know what and how it happened to America and those responsible for it’s political and culture decline. A must view for not only Christians, but for anyone who wants the truth…

40 thoughts on “Why are we in Decline”

Much better today, thank you. I expect to be better yet tomorrow. I am unlikely to be clear of pain, but the reduction is quite welcome and I’m used to the now-normal level 3 or so and can relegate it to the background. The frequent level 8 episodes of the past few days were debilitating, and Thursday and Friday were near-constant.

What a luxury it was to sleep last night, for an hour or so at a time. In a bed, even, something I’d literally not seen for days as I had zero chance of dragging myself upstairs as I had previously done once each day. And even if I’d made it, other circumstances would have prevented me from lying down — the only thing I could stand was my desk chair, seat belt and all. I had a bathrobe draped wrongly over me, as I was sitting on it. But for 36 hours, I could not move even enough to pull the robe up, so it restricted my arms all that time. And the situation created other problems, of course.

Thanks. I apologize for the info dump; I was still under some distress and lack of sleep, though both were improving. But I’ve now had a full day with no spasms, and I am one happy camper. Everything else I can deal with. I expect to get a full night’s sleep this evening, in my usual ninety minutes at a time.

And the experiment has demonstrated a prescription regime that works, with no side effects. I am doing well indeed.

1. One of the reasons there are religious schools is because the Irish Catholic immigrants didn’t want their children going to Protestant run public schools and being “Americanized” which was another term for turning them into WASPs. The Catholic Parochial schools were so successful that the Blaine Amendments were passed so that sectarian schools could not receive public funds though this undermined the few Lutheran schools set up, it overwhelmingly disadvantaged the Catholics. In short, I doubt there would be much clamor about indoctrination if the indoctrination was your own doctrine.

2. State run charities first had their genesis in America with Thomas Paine who believed that it was the civic duty of all rich citizens to support the poorer ones. I find Paine’s secular humanism to be accidental to his socialism. Indeed, secular humanism has little to do with socialism as our own government was based on it. Seriously, does no one actually read the works of classical liberals?

3. As if the media was somehow good once? Seriously, where is this magical time where newspapers and media did not have to make a bottom line and therefore create a product their consumers would enjoy? The mass media we have now is the mass media we get from capitalism. If you want arts and culture, buy the NYT. If you want financial news, buy the WSJ. If you don’t want to pay for news, go to the numerous media outlets that get their revenue from page views and have easily digestible stories. Breitbart and Salon are great examples of niche marketing and creating a product that their customers will enjoy, or in these cases, get their “2 Minutes of Hate.”

1. Interesting addition to this post. I had heard of how some Protestants sought to squelch the Catholic school movement in America, I had never bothered investigating the Blaine amendments. I did not see much point in mixing largely dormant Catholic-Protestant rivalries into the school choice movement. Anyway, googling Blaine Amendments brings up some interesting hits => https://www.google.com/search?q=Blaine+Amendments&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8.

2. Thomas Paine was something of an early socialist. He was also a Deist. So I doubt he would like be tagged as a Secular humanist.

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.

When we put government in charge of the distribution of charity, we create an unrealistic expectation. We expect the same people we make responsible for protecting our rights to give us our rights. That’s not a Christian expectation. That’s simply a temptation to do wrong, particularly since taking the property of some people just to give it to others is plainly stealing.

3. People have never been good. At times they have been better.

Many of the older newspapers, those that still exist, once had and may still have either Democrat or Republican in their name. Before the FCC started licensing TV stations, news organizations were much more independent and open about their biases.

During the heyday of the three big networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, the news became or “objective.” People like Walter Cronkite hid their biases. The just reported what they believe as factual.

So how does the news media “protect itself” from the heavy hand of government these days? Over the years most of the news media has been bought up. It is owned by a relatively small number large corporations. As one might expect, advertisers do their best to make certain their clients receive favorable treatment in the news. One of the largest clients is the Federal Government, a relatively new development.

Does it take a genius to figure out that politicians, the news media, and big corporations have close working relationships, more so than it was in the past.

Because those new media organizations that rely on cable networks and the Internet do not have to use the air waves, we are getting back to more competitive environment, one with less opportunity for government suppression (an FCC license). That is true of the Internet, in particular, especially since the startup costs on the Internet are relatively low. Unfortunately, many people still rely upon the three big networks for their news.

1. The Blaine Amendments are important because of the attacks from native Protestants on the immigrant Catholics would come to a head at the SCOTUS. The case originated in NJ where a Protestant objected to providing funds to the parents of Catholic parochial schoolchildren as reimbursement for school transportation. It was from this ruling, from a vehemently anti-Catholic and Klan supporter, Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education. It marked the first step in the judicial framework that led to the bans on all things God in schools. It is a massive bit of irony, in my opinion, that a movement calculated to quash one religion in schools would effectively quash all religion in schools and ultimately the whole “freedom from religion” movement.

2. Deism comes from secular humanism. It holds that God is a first mover, but that he takes no part in the material world. This is merely secular humanism that doesn’t want to be atheist yet. But the main principle, that man can determine and define all moral maxims for himself remains.
“We expect the same people we make responsible for protecting our rights to give us our rights.” I don’t see the correlation between social programs and rights.

3. There are several inaccuracies about what you have said. My wife having worked at a reporter for the small town newspaper and coming from a family of journalists and newsmen, I can speak from her authority that much of what you said is somewhat true in one sense, but entirely false in the one you posit.

Journalists can’t lie. When they do, they lose their credibility which is really all they have in the end.

Media companies have bottom lines. They have to make a product that will sell to their market. Ergo, you have conservative news, liberal news, mainstream news, alternative news, and so on.

The FCC rules, though draconian, for the internet actually make it the most fair. Consider your blog for instance. ABC can pay more money for more bandwidth than you can which means people will be able to access their content better than yours. Similarly, “conservative” news outlets like Breitbart and Drudge would not be able to compete with larger conglomerates like the big three you mentioned. Oddly enough, it is the FCC’s draconian fairness doctrine on the internet that has led to the boom in alternative media and the rapid decline of both print and T.V. media. In other words, the FCC made it possible for the common man to compete with the big corporation. The irony is massive.

1. Don’t disagree. The irony is rich. What goes around comes around, does it not?

2. Thomas Paines’ experience in France during the Reign of Terror taught him something about the limitations of human reason unhinged from the love of God.

3. Journalists can’t lie? Are you serious? Usually they lie by just ignoring what they do not want to report.

The FCC is run by a bunch of political appointees, just like the rest of the government. The people we elect to appoint these appointees often are infatuated with power and wealth, highly subject to temptation. Any notion they will not abuse their office is dubious, at best. Look at what Obama has been doing with his pen and his phone. If he want them obeyed, he must appoint people who will obey his unconstitutional directives.

Our political leaders are frothing at the mouth to bring the Internet under control, but they have had a hard time understanding it, just like everyone else. What “fairness doctrine” are you talking about?

1. Fate, karma, divine justice, the name is irrelevant but the result is deliciously sad.

2. Wait, a deist couldn’t have a conception of God’s love since a deist necessarily believes God does not interact with his creation. Unless you are saying Paine’s views changed, he was not a deist.

Further, I do no see the correlation between social programs and rights. I need elaboration on that point.

3. In theory, no they are not. It goes against their code of ethics. Whether or not the ignore something purposefully is making a judgement that I don’t think is possible. A journalist, as my wife relates, has to write a story according to the facts know to them. While news stories have come out and then been shown false later, it is not necessarily true that the journalist withheld information. The basically have to make judgment calls about what they think the public needs to know from the verified facts they have. They further have the pressure from editors and publishers to write stories readers will actually read. And it HAS to work this way otherwise we endanger the 1st Amendment. In short, I think you give them too much credit, attributing some conspiratorial bias. We know their biases already; it is nothing new. It is up to the consumer to find the news product they trust, that they feel has the most credibility, and follow it. It is like having a doctor. You can go to three different doctors and have a different diagnosis from each. You have to trust someone’s judgement in medical matters just as you have to trust someone’s judgement in media matters.

I was wrong; it is not fairness doctrine but net neutrality. While the FCC is not the most populist of regulatory boards, it is firmly a commission in the executive purview. I agree that that the people who appoint these other people are often infatuated with power, but who’s fault is that?

Yesterday, a major news item was revealed by a US Inspector General: The recovered files from Hillary’s server contained materials classified far higher than top secret. These are materials that, if exposed, could result in the deaths of intelligence assets abroad.

They were on Hillary’s unsecured server that had been in the hands of various non-government private parties and exposed to a concerted effort (possibly successful) of international hacking.

Last night, ABC, NBC, and CBS decided not to mention this — instead, spending a combined ten-and-a-half minutes on Sarah Palin endorsing Donald Trump. Citizen Tom’s point on journalists omitting information is exactly correct, and you are wildly wrong on this.

Net Neutrality is a massive, meddling over-solution to a problem that did not exist. They anticipated that there might be a problem someday to give them an excuse to control the flow of information. There have been many legal seminars on just how inappropriate and wrong this approach is, which will have the initial effect of spreading ripples of rising costs throughout the Internet consumer world, i.e., everyone.

Your confusion of this with the odious Fairness Doctrine is forgivable; the leftists on the FCC are thinking about and planning for political censorship in the context of net neutrality as well.

So the fact is ran in practically every other publication is meaningless? I mean, if you get all your information from T.V news, that is your fault. They are the bottom feeders of the media industry and pretty much universally hated. They thrive off of sensationalism so no one really expects substance from them. If that is your litmus test for the media in general i.e. the three news stations universally hated along with Fox, then it is obvious that you are being unfair.

Which is what you say now until you readership goes down because Verizon gives more bandwidth to Acorn because they pay more. I agree it is rather draconian, but in the interest of internet freedom, I would rather equal bandwidth be given to all rather than ISPs giving bandwidth to the highest bidder. Holding to this doctrine, it effectively polices the FCC as they, by their own policy, could not censor anyone based on content unless that content was illegal. I think, rather, it should be a law as I don’t feel comfortable with anyone, government or corporation, having anything to do with my right to free speech on the internet.

So the fact is ran in practically every other publication is meaningless?

It would not moot the point even if true. But it is not true, and even in those outlets that mentioned it, the affair was greatly downplayed. The New York Times gave a brief mention, but suggested that the problem had been with two emails, ignoring that the total is known to be well over a thousand. Here’s how they put it … and then they allowed a completely lame defense, that would have made no sense had the NYT included how many emails were involved:

Last year, the intelligence agencies found after the fact that two of Mrs. Clinton’s emails contained information that was “top secret.” The State Department disputed the determination, but it prompted an F.B.I. investigation into whether such information had been mishandled in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s account. By law, classified information is not allowed outside government computer servers. The government has said that Mrs. Clinton is not a subject of the investigation.
* * *
“This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said.

“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”

So, with two emails that seemed problematic, the explanation (though false) is plausible. But the NYT knows full well that the total stood at more than 1,200 classified emails by the end of last year.

Other mentions on establishment media were similarly delicate in trying to downplay this mess. But some simply skipped it entirely, as they had for much of the entire affair.

You continued:

I mean, if you get all your information from T.V news, that is your fault.

I do not watch television at all. But hundreds of millions of people in the United States do, and many of them are highly influenced by exactly such establishment media presentations … and omissions. There are people close to me who are nominally conservative, but whose understanding of current politics reflects programming by Stewart and Colbert as well as the establishment media spin.

Here you fell into a fallacy:

They are the bottom feeders of the media industry and pretty much universally hated. They thrive off of sensationalism so no one really expects substance from them. If that is your litmus test for the media in general i.e. the three news stations universally hated along with Fox, then it is obvious that you are being unfair.

In other words, these very highly visible journalist organizations are not “true” journalists because they demonstrate exactly the point Citizen Tom was making. This “no true Scotsman” fallacy serves you poorly.

Which is what you say now until you readership goes down because Verizon gives more bandwidth to Acorn because they pay more. I agree it is rather draconian, but in the interest of internet freedom, I would rather equal bandwidth be given to all rather than ISPs giving bandwidth to the highest bidder.

At least you are admitting here that there was no actual problem.

I have attended several hours of legal reviews and debates upon this subject, put on by the Federalist Society (tending to lean to the conservative/libertarian side, through they definitely include leftists) and the American Constitutional Society (on the left). And other, independent reviews, including presentations by the FCC commissioners themselves, on why they decided to apply 1930s utility rules to the Internet and what the implications are.

All, even proponents, admit that there are major problems, costs and impacts. The proponents hope that they will be worthwhile. This is an administrative law fiasco at best. You went on:

Holding to this doctrine, it effectively polices the FCC as they, by their own policy, could not censor anyone based on content unless that content was illegal. I think, rather, it should be a law as I don’t feel comfortable with anyone, government or corporation, having anything to do with my right to free speech on the internet.

Too bad. This highly partisan group has just taken over the ability to decide what is “illegal” during a time when hate speech is being actively considered to be in that category, based upon DOJ and other agency recommendations (and at the request of their Muslim Brotherhood advisor group). And of course, speech implicating Islam in jihadism is already forbidden in the government itself. This allows that policy, and others involving transgenders and such to be extended to everyone, for their own good.

Anyway, let’s be clear: the IG mentioned 12 in his memo that were beyond top secret. Thousands would be an exaggeration of his findings. As for the other 1,200 let me speak as one who actually has and maintains a security clearance; classified is different from top secret in the sense that footwear is different from boots. The former is the genera and the latter the species of it. Further, as a way of example, SSNs and DOBs are considered classified information and secret classified information. So it is actually very likely that the majority never extended past secret, let alone was top secret. The excerpt you provided is unsourced and lacks mention of the three emails you mention so I can’t really comment on it.

Hundreds of millions would be a slight exaggeration. Fox only has a viewership of 94,700,000 and that is for all programs over all affiliates. That includes this like FX and television programs. For news programs, Fox news has about 1,224,000 total viewers each day. The New York Times has a daily circulation of 1,379,806. In terms of news programs, both t.v. and print have about the same viewers.

I did not fall into a fallacy; I told you how print journalist view t.v. journalists. It is much like how Tea Party conservatives say Kirkian conservatives are not conservatives because no conservative is more concerned with the inner life of the soul than making sure Obama doesn’t get something or something something.

There certainly is a problem now with the plans proposed by ISPs to basically make HOV toll lanes for the internet. We are one of the most powerful nations in the world yet our internet speeds are 14th in the world and pay, on average, than South Koreans who have the fastest internet. This is not due to net neutrality, but to state and local legislation that allows existing ISPs to basically make tons of money without competing through a carving up of the region. Net neutrality does nothing to competition except prevent ISPs from continuing their oligopoly over the internet and still extort consumers. If you want to deregulate the internet, destroy the power governments give the companies to basically rob consumers for inferior products through non-compete agreements and local laws.

” And of course, speech implicating Islam in jihadism is already forbidden in the government itself.” As a government employee, I would like to know what the source of that allegation is.

They did spend a couple of minutes, combined, talking about the Democrat race, touting Bernie Sanders. But no mention on these newscasts that millions depend upon of Hillary’s email problem. Fox mentioned it, unsurprisingly.

You’ve built an odd structure in your head. Journalists do not lie, you’ve asserted, because it would be against their code of ethics. Thus, in the face of ample evidence that they DO lie, you fall back on the position that those aren’t real journalists. Their reality in your mind hardly matters: Millions rely upon them for a fair presentation of the news — and do not get it.

But feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and make noises of denial. You’re fun to watch.

Ok, it was reported elsewhere which was my point. It didn’t get into the broadcast. Simply put, people want to watch Trump and Palin; it drives up ratings and ultimately their bottom line.

Fox mentioned it because that sort of story appeals to Fox viewers. Again, marketing media to meet consumer demand. I would have thought you would love this; it is just capitalism.

You seem to have gotten a notion in your head that news agencies are required to report on every story whatsoever or else be accused of lying by omission. Seeing as that would violate their right to free speech and free press as well as their right to run the business as they see fit i.e. produce stories they calculate will be consumed by the most possible viewers, it ironically turns out that you are a free market capitalist only when it suits you.

Your “ample evidence” is, in fact, your own bias. One could say the same about the support Sanders is getting hasn’t been finding its way anywhere on Fox. Why? Because Sanders doing well, unless in relation to Clinton doing poorly, isn’t marketable to their consumers. Coke doesn’t make every flavor of Coke imaginable because only a few people want bacon Coke and no one who drinks Coke wants it to taste like Pepsi. Even C-SPAN has to edit and cut things for space and style so as to market themselves to their consumers.

Also, you said you don’t watch t.v. news so where are you getting any of that information from? From some news site that created a product that you would enjoy: i.e. how much time people spent on Clinton’s emails. You may as well be keeping up with Kardashians.

We may get some illumination from the Court this term on at least some implications of “Blaine Amendment” jurisdictions. There is a case pending concerning a denial by the State of Missouri of state funds for improvement of a playground at a Lutheran school. The particular project denied funding was one in which old tires are recycled and used as a safer surface (safer than gravel or wood chips) on playgrounds. The state’s reason for denial of funds was Missouri’s Blaine Amendment. The Lutherans are saying that there is absolutely no religious content to the playground surface, so what’s the problem with using public monies where there is clearly not a religious component to the funded activity.

“That is because the government does not and cannot regulate (thank God), what is in people’s hearts and minds.”

Oh, but they can! What we think and believe is heavily influenced by those around us, especially those in authority. Children are the most vulnerable. If you watch people around you praying, you learn that prayer is good. If you see people around you forbidden to pray, you learn that the very act of praying is bad.

I’m not sure how government could have “ejected” (or substituted out) Christianity from government schools, since, under the Constitution, the government should not be dispensing Christianity or any other religion in government spaces in the first place. To the extent I know of events in the 1960s that might bear on your reference, religious liberty was protected by court rulings that prohibited government imposition of religion. I’m sure all of us who are of a religious disposition (as well as those who are not) applaud the fact that the federal courts protected our religious freedoms. Beyond that fundamental constitutional point, a lot of us have the view that there are very few things that governments do well, even within their allotted, limited space under our Constitution and our laws. One of the things that governments most certainly do badly is to impose prayer on people. The last thing any of us want (even you, Tom) is some half-baked, cockamamie, shallow, Government-imposed version of Christianity (or any other religion) forced on our children by civil servants.

Of course, nothing “evicted” God from the schools. The only issue was government-imposed prayer. God was very much present at the public schools that I attended in the 1960s and that one of my children attended in the 1990s. I’m sure others have had similar experiences. That is because the government does not and cannot regulate (thank God), what is in people’s hearts and minds.

First, the federal government should not have been involved in education. It was initially a very local phenomenon, though supported by higher government layers from time to time, usually in the territories and often in the form of Bibles or chaplains-as-teachers.

Second, support for (non-mandatory) religion had been a stable of US education for the previous century and a half, and had been evident in the very first actions by the very first Congress and by statements of many Founders.

Fourth, the prohibition against Christianity by progressives has been extended to include prohibition against the ideas of American exceptionalism, American patriotism, and American values. These are actively being discouraged, and are being labeled “microaggressions” on campuses across the US, while Howard Zinn’s poisonous anti-American history books are distributed to elementary school teachers.

Such is education today.

As a non-theist youth in the 1960s, I had no problem with prayer in schools, nor did I have a problem with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance I took last week — despite the fact that the phrase was not in the Pledge when I was born.

In the case of the Pledge, I understand and respect the spirit and intent, even if I don’t take it literally.

And In the case of prayers, I recognized that religious groups did a lot of good, and that most people were religious. It did me no harm. Kids could remain quiet, or simply say the words but decide for themselves whether or not they were true, and discuss these things with their parents.

But that was when kids had parents. Now they have care-providers and enablers at home, with whom they argue as they demand benefits, and their indoctrination and role models are provided by the federal “village” and the Marxist culturally corrupt media.

I have made it clear I have no use for state-run schools. Who but our government would try to run a school system with four layers of management, Federal, state, local, and a school board?

Those who run our the public school system to indoctrinate children in various politically correct causes.

Socialism: it is okay to deify government, let government steal, and trust government to redistribute our wealth. Considering that the public school system is a socialist institution, expecting the people who run it to preach against Socialism is just absurd.

Environmentalism: this is a value system that emphasizes the welfare of “nature” at the expense of man. Global warming is a crock, but we cannot even take a chance it might be real. Meanwhile, we are suppose to let people starve?

Moral Relativism: here is an ethical system that is suppose to replace the one Christ gave us.

Sexual Liberation: forget the kiddies. Just love the one you are with.

Multiculturalism: there is no truth. It is okay to believe whatever you wish.

Feminism: women are just little men. Marriage is a trap for women.

I could go on, but the point is that our school system is now just a tool for subverting traditional America values.

You might want to read it again, Tom. I said that I was not aware of any event in which the Government “kicked God out” of the public schools and asked what your reference was.

I do know that our constitutional protections against government interference with religion were upheld around the time you reference. At that time, it was not unheard of for the government to try to force government prayers on school children. Fortunately for the religious community, the Supreme Court protected our First Amendment rights and put a halt to that.

Obviously, you were referring to something else, and my curiosity was piqued.

Still playing your usual word games? Still don’t like having the tables turned?
😀

So government substitutes Christianity with a bunch of “isms,” including Secular Humanism, and that protects our religious freedom? You should know better.

There is an old saw. Nature abhors a vacuum. In the name of religious freedom, the courts ejected the teaching of anything that smacks of Christianity from the public schools. Human nature being what it is, however, requires the teaching of some ideology. The fact that those who believe that ideology insist that it is “secular” doesn’t mean that what they believe is not about what they worship. In fact, religious education still takes place in the public schools, and much of it is anti-Christian.

I’ve just come out the end of three very bad days. I slept last night (Sunday night) for the first time since Wednesday, and had been literally trapped in my chair all that time until yesterday afternoon, unable to stand or even move much without agonizing spasms. I was ready to quit, but got one more medication Friday night which ultimately worked. Saturday began to show signs of improvement, and yesterday was better yet — today I am functional again and have had no spasms for about a day. Now I am just extremely sore from the muscle abuse, but that will pass.

I’d love to find a painkiller that worked on my exotic nervous system. Instead, I have to fix the problem causing the pain since nothing actually relieves or masks pain for me. It can make for some long nights, and for the past nearly two years low-level pain is a constant companion as the nerves to my back, abdomen, and legs are fried by the disease brought on by the bad dinner at the nice restaurant.

More than you wanted to know — but in fact I am very hopeful at this moment, as I’ve got an anti-spasm medication that has just been demonstrated to fix the only problem I could not live with, so I’m quite happy about the future.

What you are going through sounds awful. I expect that is why so many would prefer to die with their boots on. There is no bravery in that wish; just fear.

I have a problem with spinal stenosis, but I manage to control the pain with exercise. My wife thinks I like to exercise, but it is the fear of the pain drives me to the gym every day.

I do enjoy exercise, but I don’t walk on a treadmill or lift weights every day just for fun. Still, as I age I expect the benefits of exercise will slowly evaporate.

My wife worries about my dying on some lonely running/walking trail while I exercise. I don’t. Running shoes? Boots? Close enough.

Anyway, I am glad you managed to come out those three days in good spirits. That takes courage, and it is a gift to your family. As we grow older, it seems there is no substitute for a good attitude. The example of good attitude is one of best things we can give to someone we love.

Why do you say that God was “kicked out of the schools” in the 1960s? I was in school in those days, and most of my friends and teachers were very religious people who invoked God frequently (and, I must acknowledge, perhaps shallowly) on school premises. The only event(s) that I can even wildly speculate that you might be referring to were court cases banning government-imposed prayer in schools. These were excellent opinions from the perspective of those of us in the religious community who bridle at the thought of government degrading religion by pushing some civil servant’s brand of theology down our throats or the throats of our children. But, having wildly speculated, that can’t be what you were referring to, given that those decisions had nothing to do with God, they were completely about enforcing limitations on state interference with religion. There must be something else that I missed.

In my opinion, the film is a factual presentation and warning to Americans. Unfortunately, most Americans will never see or hear it not only because the media will ignore the video, but most Americans are not interested in the contents.

American interests are like a pendulum though, . Remember the Congress members on 9/11 singing on the steps of thee Capital building, God Bless America.

Americans do react when there is a crisis. I believe this next election may be the beginning of the American pendulum reversing direction. At least i hope so.

I will reblog your post the week before the Iowa primary. Hope others do the same.

Interesting, Tom. I am of two minds here. I grew up in the free love 60’s among the radicals who were talking about remaking society, not unlike President Obama with his childhood communist friend, Frank Marshall Davis. I knew of Karl Marx and the Weathermen and the idealism and dreams people had long before we began to see these ideas become mainstream and accepted. So here I still am, among people who genuinely believe President Obama is the culmination of those dreams, soon to be replaced with the outright socialist, Bernie Sanders.

Is it all true however, as in has it all been a grand scheme that has come to fruition? Is what we are seeing the will of the people or a great conspiracy? Are we really in decline or are these just birth pains? What is the church’s role in all this? Are there supernatural forces at play here or is our fate entirely in our own hands? What is really happening to us anyway?

These are the kind of questions that keep me up at night. I don’t have any answers, just more questions and a pretty keen awareness that I just need to lean into the Lord and hang on. That’s the good news. 😉

I don’t doubt the Cultural Marxists are excited about “their progress” and furious at the prospect that their gains might be reversed. I fully expect to see more riots in the streets of the big cities. Nevertheless, “their progress” has far more to do with our failures than it does with their successes.

Are we not our own worst enemy? Are we not always in a conspiracy against ourselves? Isn’t the flesh weak?

Horace Mann started pushing public education started in the 1830’s. It is unlikely Mann ever heard of Karl Marx, but humble politicians are rare, to say the least. Hence, we have to restrain them. Isn’t that why we use to have a constitutional republic?

When Horace Mann started pushing for a state-run education system, people liked the idea. They failed to anticipate the inevitable consequences, and to some extent we cannot blame them. God was not kicked out of the schools until the 1960’s, and local people use to run the schools from top to bottom.

Government has easy access to money. It just takes it. So it always looks like an easy fix. Thus, when a republic (a very rare type of government) falls apart, Socialism seems to be the natural outcome. Didn’t the Romans have their bread and circuses?

Paine believed man could perfect himself. Christians should know better, but sometimes we forget. Hence, theories such as Paine’s slowly took root in America.

Were there supernatural force at work? Are supernatural forces at work now? Probably, but that’s something I cannot explain. I just know too many of us have failed to instruct our children as the Bible says we should.

So why is the observation that we are our own worst enemy important? It gives us hope. Jesus showed us how we could turn to Him and overcome the flesh with the power of the Holy Spirit. With Jesus’ help, the strength of the Cultural Marxist’s doesn’t matter. Until we take our eyes off Jesus, our human opponents have no power over us. Even now, if we turn to our Lord for help, we can overcome them.

Cultural Marxism has a very great effect upon the US’s cultural decline, and I have seen no overstatements so far. The Frankfort School is extremely influential in US colleges, all of them. Critical Theory is built-in to essentially every course, in ways blatant and subtle.

In that acidic soil, we are raising a series of ever-more-stunted generations.

Thanks for taking the time to look at the video. Your confidence in it increases my own.

I don’t deny the philosophy of Cultural Marxism has its adherents. I don’t deny that many of those adherent, such as our president apparently, think they are on some kind of holy mission. I just think their success depended upon conditions they did not create. When Americans turned the education of their children over to the state, we gave those who desire statism rule over our nation.

I did complete the video, finally. Their strong focus on the Frankfort School and cultural Marxism is still well placed, it seems to me. In fact, it influenced them in a couple of ways, when they pick up and echo Marxist emphases on hating the “military-industrial complex” and bankers and “multi-national corporations,” all of which the presentation heaps disapproval upon late in the video.

All large entities are motivated to “connect up” with the government, whether they are entirely US-based or multinational, and whether held as private proprietorships or LLCs or non-profits or in the usual corporate form. The incentives are rigged to encourage such participation.

The Federal Reserve, fiat currency, and unsound money and economy manipulations are all problems, but they are not direct effects of cultural Marxism.

But we do have lots of such effects.Black Lives Matter,

There are literally hundreds of Marxist professors on campuses, and even non-Marxist professors use texts on critical theory, seemingly unaware of that theory’s origin and intent.

The video’s overall conclusions I agree with, in essentially all respects other than those noted above.

But we do have lots of such effects.Black Lives Matter, occupy wall street, Students for Justice in Palestine, and so many other movements are the knowing creations of cultural Marxism, as are the black and women’s and gender and transgender and political activism and culture studies that Eric Holder fought for and which now dominate campuses. So are the current anti-free-speech, anti-police, anti-rich, anti-white, and anti-American movements.

Words From The Past

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. — Socrates (from here)

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.